Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN CHC 1999-05-19 EXEC SESS HIRE ATTY• RE: 5/19/99 Executive Session Hawaii County Charter Commission 1999-2000 Please note that the 5/19/99 Executive Session minutes have not been scanned into the Clerk's Laserfiche Repository as per County Clerk's (Stewart Maeda) instructions on 12/21/2012 after his review of the minutes. ***.************************************************* For information: ORIGINAL MINUTES 1999-2000 CHARTER Volume I (Binder) VOLUME I Binder contains the following: • 2/20/99 — Scanned into Laserfiche • 3/17/99 — Scanned into Laserfiche • 4/14/99 — Scanned into Laserfiche • 5/12/99 — Scanned into Laserfiche • 5/19/99 — Scanned into Laserfiche • 5/19/99 Executive Session - has not been scanned into Laserfiche EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1999 ALPHABETICAL INDEX Subject Page numbers Adjournment 11 Attendance 1 Selection of Commission Attorney 1 • • HAWAII COUNTY,CHARTER COMMISSION Transcript of Executive Session at the Meeting of May 19, 1999 Hawaii County Liquor Commission Conference Room, Hilo Lagoon Center Attendance: J. Ray, K. Balog, S. Bess, M. Herkes, R. Higashi (from 5:22 p.m.), S. Irvine, D. Kurozawa, G. Martin, J. Santangelo, G. Yoshiyama, Corporation Counsel R. Wurdeman Absent: E. Alonzo RAY: Okay, so we're going to go into Executive Session to discuss the hiring of our attorney. The head of the committee who has been doing the search, Mr. Bess, will now address the committee -, Commission. BESS: Yes. First of all, let me tell you that I did check with Corporation Counsel and look at the State statute regarding the hiring of an attorney, and I think it's most prudent that we go ahead and we will be -, we will put three names before this Committee, because there is a State statute that indicates that that's what we should do. However, we will be making a recommendation about the attorney to be hired. There are three names that we are submitting to you, and we have to apologize to you for not doing this by letter, but we did have some difficulty in interviewing all of the candidates. In fact, the last candidate was interviewed today, so that's why it isn't in writing. But the three names are Bob Crudele, Steven Lim and Chris Yuen, and the committee has unanimously recommended that we hire Chris Yuen. Based on his demonstrated experience with the Charter, we think that in terms of -, because of that experience, in terms of cost to the Charter Commission, we're probably looking at less cost because he's been through it before, so that there may be a saving to the County. Although, certainly Steve is a fast learned so -. But anyway, but that's one of them. And then what we would -, there is a third item, and that is availability to perform, that Mr. Lim and -, is in practice, and until today, I did not realize that he is the only attorney, principal, full-time attorney in Carlsmith at the present time, they do have a part-time attorney, and there is some concern about his schedule, although I must say that Steve did indicate that he would be very much available and that he's very much interested in the job. I keep referring to Steve, and let me clarify, there are two candidates that we believe stand head and shoulders above the rest, and that's Mr. Lim and Mr. Yuen. Of those two candidates, we are recommending that Chris Yuen be hired. This hiring would be subject to negotiating a fee and, again, because of timing and our ability to interview everybody, we didn't get to that, so what we're suggesting that Chris be hired 1 subject to our negotiating an acceptable fee. RAY: Okay. For discussion -. HERKES: Do you want a motion? RAY: Can I have a motion? HERKES: So moved. I move that we accept the committee's recommendation. RAY: Do I have a second? YOSHIYAMA: Second. RAY: Okay. Discussion? Can I -? Go ahead, Kevin, Mr. Balog. BALOG: I'm just trying to sort out, you're questioning -, one of the questions you're saying is Steve Lim is the only attorney at Carlsmith. BESS: Yeah. BALOG: How many attorneys work for Yuen? BESS: He's by himself, as well. There is -, the -. BALOG: I mean, if you take out the scheduling -. BESS: Yeah. BALOG: How do you feel? BES S: Let me say this, Kevin. Of the three items mentioned, availability is a very small part of it. BALOG: Okay. Well, you mentioned -. BESS: Because we, you know, in fairness, what had happened was that Steve had indicated that his schedule is very busy, and that by his working by himself, he's -, he gets up very early in the morning and works long hours. He indicated that he was certainly -, he would love to do the job, Kevin, and -, but one of the things that came out was that, you know, he would, as would all attorneys, like to make sure, you know, that we scheduled his time, you know, that we schedule our time and that he would know ahead of time so that he could schedule his, which is a reasonable accommodation. But, you know, I can tell you that one of the reasons we are at the 2 • • point that we are in right now is because we had a great deal of time difficulty in scheduling him. BALOG: Right. BESS: Time that was acceptable for Steve. And I don't want to hold that against the guy. In fact, I'm reporting what the committee said. I can tell you, responding as an individual of that committee, I think my decision to go with Chris was really based on his Charter experience and demonstrated ability in the Charter field. For me, the availability issue is not a real issue. BALOG: BESS: That was one of many questions so -. Yeah. Yeah. BALOG: The -, I guess the other question I had was just since you guys did the selection, you're making the recommendation to us. If you put -, you're saying about Charter experience. For a lay person like me, who is not an attorney, explain to me what you mean by he has Charter experience versus someone who doesn't because -. HERKES: You weren't here last week. BALOG: I've seen -. BERKES: That's your problem. BALOG: Well, I know it's my -. BERKES: Yeah. BALOG: Problem but I -. RAY: Well, wait -. BALOG: I'm here this week. BERKES: Okay. RAY: Excuse -, wait, wait. Please don't interrupt. Let him -. BALOG: I've seen -. RAY: Answer the question. BALOG: Someone like Mr. Lim in certain fields deal with the government and aspects of a Charter, so that's -, if you're recommending two guys and you're saying you know they're shoulders above the other people. who applied, and it seems to be like it was, well, this person has just a slight edge, that's what I want to know, what is the slight edge, or how do you define -? BESS: Well, I don't know that I mentioned slight edge, but I -, but in terms of your question about Charter Commission experience, Chris was the attorney for the last Charter Commission, and from what we have been able to gather, not only out of Chris, but other individuals, he did an outstanding job, an outstanding, professional job, and that's -. After the interview, we said, wow. This -, we don't have to -. He has a feel for the whole process that I'm not saying that Steve could not get that kind of feel, but he doesn't have hands-on a I've been through the process, this is the way we could short-cut things. I've researched a number of the issues that you will be dealing with; I don't have to research them again, or all I'm doing is updating research. That's what I'm talking about. RAY: Kevin, go ahead. You have more? (R. Higashi arrived) SANTANGELO: You're just in time. BESS: But I got to tell you, Kevin -. BALOG: I just was -. I guess my other -, my only other comment would be -, is that I'm a person -. I just believe -. I'm not saying I'm -, how I'll vote, but sometimes it's good to have continuity and have the same person do the same thing, and other times, without being able to know what the committee learned through the interviews, that's why I'm depending on you. It's good to have someone else to look at something a hair different or be able to present something different. That doesn't mean that they -, I guess shorten my time or lengthen it, because the process is going to be the -, to me, the process, what it takes, but who will look at something and give a difference of opinion that you may or may not have had in that specific area ten years ago. So that's the only reason why, you know, I didn't do the interviews, so I got to feel comfortable to ask -. BESS: Right. BALOG: The questions. BESS: Right. BALOG: And depend on your answers back. Because I looked, too, and I was thinking, hey, right on, Chris Yuen, but when you said you had the other two, it makes -, then it 4 starts my wheels to be turning. Well, what would these other people -? What other things could they offer? A different look or interpretation or some background that they may have affects stuff that we will do, too. So I don't know if those things came up in your interviews either. BESS: Well, I think that, you know, we have three people that were putting their names before you. BALOG: Oh, I see. BESS: One of them -. BALOG: That was the only three -. BESS: One of them -. BALOG: Who applied then? BESS: No, no. BALOG: Oh. BESS: That is not true. BALOG: Oh, okay. BESS: And one of them that lacks administrative law experience. I mean, if you look at people who are working with government, Steve Lim and Chris Yuen are head and shoulders above -. BALOG: Oh, okay. BESS: The rest of the people. BALOG: So that's why you're saying these two -. BESS: In terms of -. In terms of professional legal competence in dealing with governmental matters, Steven Lim and Chris Yuen stand out. RAY: Kevin? BALOG: Let me digest that. Call somebody else. RAY: Okay. Marni.. 5 HERKES: I have a -, and I'd like to speak for Chris Yuen. -I have a kind of a mentor that was on the last Charter Commission, and I kind of bounce things off of him and talk to him a lot, and he felt that Chris Yuen did a job that was above and beyond what was necessary. There is- a perception, of course, on the other side of the Island that maybe not quite things are handled as well as they could be or that there's certain -, and that came out in this discussion, but he felt that Chris Yuen was even above board and did an excellent job on the last Charter Commission, so I'll just say that. RAY: Okay. HERKES: But I like Steven Lim, also. BESS: Ido, too. (Indiscernible discussion) RAY: Absolutely. Gary. YOSHIYAMA: Yeah, I guess I -, John, I'm going to ask for a ruling from you whether or not I can vote, because we recently hired Chris Yuen as an attorney to represent us on a case. The case is over now, okay, but I thought I'd just throw it to you and then you can determine whether I can vote or not. • RAY: I think that's fine. YOSHIYAMA: Okay. Thank you. RAY: Okay. John. SANTANGELO: Kevin, having been on that selection committee and having worked with, as you know from the Council, I've worked with Steve before. You know, we're really talking about two people that are just right out there. I guess my personal relationship with Steve really leaned me in that direction, and so it was really a slow and a slight edge that Chris has because, again, having met him on several occasions here, and then, you know, the background and then the experience, and you said, gee, you know -. And then with Steve it was just really, really hard to get with him. Steve -, you know, Steve's busy as heck. And so, you know, it's -, I mean, this Commission will be well served with either. I do feel the committee struggled really, really openly, you know, with this, and we didn't quickly come to a unanimous decision, but we did come to a very supportive, unanimous decision based on the quality of the two and the fact that there's a lot to be said about the openness of what Chris could offer us. But, you know, you've got -, I mean, you got two Cadillacs just came out of the factory, and they're perfect, you know. RAY: Okay. Roland. 6 HIGASHI: RAY: May I just -? Roland, sure. Let the record note that Mr. Higashi is here. HIGASHI: I'm like most of you. I mean, we've dealt with both of these people and, you know, Chris and I have a long relationship through the father and as the son grew up, and I have the highest respect for him as an attorney. But my only, my gut feeling is that I'd like -, you know, he did it last time and everybody said he did a good job. But I think I'd like to have another set of eyes look at, who is just as capable, look at putting together the new Charter, you know. It's a new set of eyes, new set of thinking. I'm sure everybody, you know, spent -, I mean, he spent a lot of time doing this last time, but nothing was perfect. You know, I mean, there's still some areas that went overlooked as the Mayor stated last time, you know. There's a portion in there that was overlooked as far as if you were elected two years before, I don't know exactly what the terminology was but, I mean, there's some deficiencies in that kind of areas. But my main point is that I would rather see somebody who's got a fresh -eyed look at it before -, I mean, can look at it new rather than a person who's done it before. RAY: Okay. Just so you know, Roland, there is a motion on the floor to elect, or to choose Chris. We are discussing a motion. Okay. IRVINE: I guess I -. HIGASHI: It -. RAY: No, go ahead, Roland. HIGASHI: No, no, no. RAY: Okay, Sue. IRVINE: I just did -, I wanted to say the same thing, that Roland wasn't here when we did say that our committee unanimously recommended that we hire Chris, and our reasons, were that he's had the known experience, even though we're sure that Steve could learn quickly, Chris knows the dollar constraints by way of -, that it won't -, you know, we're not willing to pay all that much, and Steve seemed quite amenable to that, also. When it came to scheduling, Steve really said to me that we'd have to have a set schedule because he's awfully busy. And, you know, I'd like us to have a set schedule, too; we haven't yet gotten there as far as I know. Both of these people seem to understand that good government is a little bit different from just the legal process, and either one of them would work in that manner. But I would, personally, like to speak for Chris because he's been so highly recommended by people of very different political ilks • • who served on the last Commission, and he just provided, you know, even -handed -advice, and I think we all came away feeling that. RAY: Okay. Other comments? Okay. BALOG: I guess before you call for the question, just one last thing. I mean, I've had Chris -, I've seen Chris Yuen, too, as an attorney and, in fact, once in a while he orders chicken manure, but we don't do work for him, so there's no conflict there. I just -, every attorney, if you put ten attorneys in a room, and this is my -, this is why I kind of feel strongly not going with the same attorney. If you put ten attorneys in a room, each attorney you can show the same phrase to and, most times, ten attorneys will have a different opinion. And there's nothing wrong with that. But I don't believe being charged with reviewing a charter, that we should be getting -, and I believe this is what would happen because this is what I'm hearing from the people who served on the committee, he's been through it, he knows this, he knows this, the loophole or he's done the work, he sees what's there. I don't believe -, if I look at this document, and I'm the last attorney, there may be things that we may suggest, but I don't believe that that attorney will look at things the same way that if you get somebody else to look at it for you. And there may be legal issues that someone else, some other attorney could bring out, whether it be the -, I'll just mention the finalists, Mr. Crudele or Mr. Lim, in all fairness, that would bring out that Mr. Yuen wouldn't, because he's gone through the process. And I've had people say that Mr. Yuen is a great attorney, and I've had people say he's a poor attorney. I've had people say Mr. Lim's a great attorney and a poor attorney, too, as well as Mr. Crudele. But in the same breath, it just -, to get somebody, although they've gone through it already, to say that that's the person for this, that wouldn't be -, I can't vote for somebody on that reason. And then to hear someone who served on the committee to say I have two Cadillacs coming off the assembly line, not to steal your words, or two Volvos, and they're exactly alike, they're both great, except this person just a little bit, you know, he went through the process. I mean, if that's what separates them, because someone went through a process, that would be like if you get a good commissioner 9n another commission, reappointing them, and that's why you don't do it. Everybody has a time. They're all good. I believe in recycling -, not recycling, but. going on, doing your thing, putting your ideas, your best effort forward, and then going out. I really believe in that. And that's why, after listening to everything, I just got to say I couldn't vote for Chris. And I don't -, and it's not because you guys haven't said any reason except for scheduling and that might be a little hindrance with Mr. Lim; that's the only thing I've heard. It's not on his ability, "ability." It's more on something he may or may not be able to do. And I guess, you know, that's just how I feel. I think they're both great, actually, personally, but -, and I think Mr. Crudele's a good attorney, too. But if I'm stuck to choose between those two people, the two highest recommended, then I would choose someone who didn't, who already hasn't look at this and could give me fresh ideas, as well as all of us, because we aren't the same Charter Commission that 8 looked at it ten years ago, and there's a reason for that, and I honestly believe that. So that's just • my reason. It may be wrong, but that's just how I, personally, feel. RAY: Mr. Bess. BESS: Let me say something, and this speaks to both of these guys. One of the things that stands out for both of these individuals is their professionalism and their openness to looking at provisions free of their own opinions. Now, we all know that's more theoretical than real, but the committee was impressed by both of these guys, by their willingness to be able to look at things openly. So I think, you know, in terms of either one of them having an agenda or a narrowness of vision in looking at the Charter, I don't see it. And that's -, if I were saying, gee, okay, I really think that the reason I want Chris here is because he's going to look at the Charter the same way he did ten years ago, I'm convinced that he won't look at the Charter as he did ten years ago because, because he is of the professional quality he is. So -, and not only do I think a lot of Steve professionally, I have a lot of aloha for him personally. But, you know, personally, I am going to vote in favor of Chris for the reasons stated. BALOG: Well -. HIGASHI: You know, in the procedural part, rather than -, can we take a straw vote, just vote -, I. don't want to vote against somebody but I'd rather vote -, take a straw vote first and then go -, we're unanimous or whatever. HERKES: Robert's Rules don't call for -. SANTANGELO: No. BERKES: IRVINE: BERKES: RAY: HERKES: RAY: MARTIN: RAY: Straw votes. No. I don't think. No, I think we should just vote. I think we got to, you know, stop these straw votes. We're in the Executive Session, anyway. Call for - Wait, wait, wait, hold on. 9 MARTIN: The question. RAY: Wait, wait, wait. Roland, so I'd rather vote. George you had -. MARTIN: Call for the question. HIGASHI: So the vote is -. Can you read the -? RAY: The motion is to approve the nomination of Mr. Yuen as recommended unanimously by the committee. Okay. And point of privilege as Chair, I'm going to vote for Mr. Yuen mainly because of the recommendation of the committee. Okay. All in favor, raise your righthand. Okay, that carries it. All right. Thank you very much. In regard to our attorney in general, a thought that occurred to me in terms of our budget is that if we can figure out a way to encumber as much of the budget approved for this calendar year, then we'll have the additional budget for next year, which may, you know, preclude having to go back to the Council. I'm not, you know, suggesting we spend all the money we can, but I think that might be wise. So I did meet with the Accounting Department, and if we can get this contract going, we can, you know, we can use that to encumber a certain sum of money, you' know, this year, and then we can add to that on the contract, you know, the following year, and I think that might be a prudent thing to do. So, you know, I'll sit down with Steve and see what we can do to get this contract moving along as quickly as possible and figure out what would be a reasonable . . amount to encumber for the legal contact, you know, and then have enough money, you know, left over for whatever expenses we have this year. Does everybody understand what I'm -? IRVINE: You'd be encumbering just the amount we need for the legal services this year, or can you encumber, you know, as much as -? RAY: No, all we can do is for this year, but if we can go ahead and encumber the majority of the money we have, you know, budgeted for this year, then it won't lapse. Okay. HIGASHI: saying? With the services to be provided after this calendar year, is that what you're RAY: Yeah. Yeah. So we can sit down with the County and Dixie and figure out, you know, just a way to do that. Okay. So, okay, thank you very much to the committee for that -, for all the hard work and that recommendation. That's great. We have an attorney picked out and, hopefully, we can figure out how to get him on board and plugged in as quickly as possible. Okay. Okay. We are now going out of Executive Session. HERKES: Are we going to do secretary? 10 RAY: HERKES: RAY: HERKES: Yeah. Okay. But we don't have to do that in -. No. RAY: Okay. We're going to go out of Executive Session and discuss on the Unfinished Business Item VII, B, the hiring of our secretary. The discussion ended at 5:40 p.m. 11 Respectfully submitted, Cliive.&eC7( Janet L. Kama Interim Secretary